User talk:Chzz

File:326px-Wikipe-tan dp.png

zzz

File:All-hail-jimbo-lolcat.jpg

zzz

Please create a new section to leave me a message. Thanks!

Medeshampstede

{{helpme}}

In the talk page for the above, [User:Nortonius|Nortonius]] states that the name should be spelt without a 'p'. He has added a note in brackets on the page to denote this.

As per the above, assuming it is correct (I wouldn't know);

• in Medeshampstede 1st line, is the abbreviation 'recte' (meaning 'correctly') acceptable?
• If the name was wrong, then the page needs a move.

Nortonius has started correcting the spelling on other pages, but that means that they are currently linking to this via a redirect.

I suspect the (recte) part could be deleted, the definition kept if there's a citation for it, and the page moved...and then links checked? --  Chzz  ►  17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Further info

Googling shows many sites that DO spell it with a 'p'...some are scraped from WP, but others look like they're sourced elsewhere.

Google matches are; Medeshamstede 3290 Medeshampstede 448

and [[1]] looks like a citable ref to me, from an AD664 Anglo-Saxon charter.

I suggest moving Medeshampstede to Medeshamstede, adding the citation, making a redirect from Medeshampstede, and checking links.

I would still welcome another opinion...if this is the right approach, I'm happy to do it. --  Chzz  ►  18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for Requested moves - that's a forum where you can bring potentially controversial moves such as this to the attention of other editors and get some other opinions on the matter. Not knowing much about this myself (and judging from how long you've been waiting, I'd say not many other helpers do either), you'd probably be better off there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take it over there --  Chzz  ►  19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure that I qualify as 'another opinion' (!), but the 'citable ref' found by Chzz is excellent - in that it's an online reference which follows the organisation of Peter Sawyer's indispensable handbook Anglo-Saxon Charters (as signified by the 'S' in 'S 68'), and gives an edition of the text of the charter in question; though I would stress that it's an edition, as the earliest available (12th century) manuscript version for this charter actually reads Ælfere, in error for Uulfere - but, more importantly, I can confirm that the manuscript does read 'Medeshamstede', and not 'Medeshampstede'!. And I'm relieved that you've offered to work this through, Chzz, thank you! Nortonius (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Having checked WP:RM and other articles I'm confident this is an Uncontroversial proposal and therefore I will do the move and adjustments, as described, myself. Of course I will document this on the Medeshamstede talk page.--  Chzz  ►  19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Moved "Medeshampstede" to "Medeshamstede" and talk page

Fixed linking pages as follows;

• Peterborough - had already been changed (earlier today)

• Wulfhere of Mercia - had already been changed (earlier today)
• Medeshampstede (redirect page) - correctly redirects to Medeshamstede

• Peterborough Cathedral - changed 1 link
• Flag Fen - changed 1 link

• Talk:Peterborough - note and explanation added
• Deusdedit of Canterbury - changed 1 link

• Shifnal - changed 1 link
• Medeshampstead (redirect page) - changed to redirect to moved page

• Medehampstede - disambig page - changed 1 link
• Talk:Medeshamstede - talk page, comments already added to explain move

Noted where appropriate

 Done

=Request for input

I will have a look at this over the week-end. At first glance it seems reasonable although I have a number of punctuation changes. I have left a note on the talk page of the article re looking at the English Place Name Society's work. 128.100.62.31 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

List new users: Special:Log/newusers

You can go to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates for a full list of welcome templates, or to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table for a visual gallery of welcome messages.

The standard template is {{subst:W-basic}}. To use it, type this on a new user's talk page:

== Welcome! ==

{{subst:W-basic}}

This will make a section titled "Welcome!" and place the welcome message under it. Be sure to place greetings on each user's talk page, not their user page. This will ensure they will receive the "You have new messages" automatic alert.

Sandbox link wrong?

{{helpme}}

On the demo sandbox page Wikipedia:Sandbox where it says;

This page is a virtual sandbox on Wikipedia. For uses of sandboxes, see the article sandbox.

Shouldn't 'sandbox' lead to Wikipedia:About_the_Sandbox rather than that disambiguation page?

--  Chzz  ►  23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The sandboxes it is referring to are real world sandboxes.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kerotan. It's either me being stupid, or it's not clear. If you think it might be the latter - or other people might be as dense - it might be worth clarifying...perhaps changed to "for ther uses of the word sandbox, see..." ? Maybe. Thanks anyway, --  Chzz  ►  00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Tiptoety has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Virgin Killer

I understand that the positioning of the covers is not the RFC issue, but it still is the source of contention as evidenced by several reverts. As the template states, the current version is not endorsed by protection, so reverting to another version at this point, even if it is the pre-dispute version, seems imprudent. If you disagree, I suggest bringing this to the attention of other administrators at the noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Nufy8 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No harm done; at least it was only one revert as opposed to the several that other users continued to do. Nufy8 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident that consensus will be reached within the protection period (three days), so I still think it's best to leave it as is until then. Reverting it now would probably ignite more displeasure, and there's always the possibility of administrators stepping in to enforce WP:PREFER, which could start a wheel war. In this situation, I'd rather err on the side of caution unless it's something blatantly anti-policy. Nufy8 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was not already established; that would imply some discussion had taken place, usually on the talk page, in which editors concluded that the nude cover should be at the top. That didn't happen. User:Freakofnurture added the cover about three years ago and there it stayed until now. Going unchallenged for awhile does not imply consensus. Nufy8 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I just stopped by, and saw this discussion. About 'Going unchallenged for awhile does not imply consensus', at Wikipedia:Consensus it says "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." Just poking my oar in, sorry if you think it's irrelevant, or it's not wanted. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is little hope of reaching consensus until after the drv ifd has closed. If the image survives we will then have 3 options, no cover, cover lower down and cover at the top. And it will be for the editors at the article to make that decision,. what happened before is not relevant due to the recent interest in the subject. I hope if the image survives that we choose not to use it anyway, it would be the obvious and sensible solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re ID comment

Of course it would. But that isn't actually the case - in fact, something like 40% of Americans believe in intelligent design, according to surveys (I don't know if that's the actual figure, but it's half past midnight here and I can't be bothered to look it up). It is, of course, true that something like 95% of qualified biologists believe in evolution (again, probably not the exact figure). Both of these are accurate statements which can be sourced and which emphatically belong in the articles. But at the moment, the general approach seems to be to label ID as "pseudoscience" and as essentially religious rather than scientific. While I understand the rationale for that view (and I'm not qualified to dispute it personally, since I'm no scientist), it isn't NPOV; it's disputed by the likes of William Dembski, who describe their viewpoint as entirely scientific. The fact that the US courts have ruled that ID is pseudoscience (I'm aware of Kitzmiller v Dover) does not make it indisputable fact that it is pseudoscience, since this is still hotly disputed. At the moment, most of our evolution-ID controversy articles read like an attempt to "debunk creationist myths" rather than a neutral and balanced look at the subject. We are not here to argue a point of view (even that held by the majority of scientists), but to cover all significant points of view in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. (Sorry for this rambling response; it's late here and I need to go to bed.) Walton^One 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For cookie, I appreciate it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I think I understand what you're trying to do on User:Chzz/virginkiller, but you're not supposed to have non-free images in user space. Sooner or later those album covers will have to go. You can list them, though. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I already changed that page to a list. Incidentally, Chzz, I've mentioned that page here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that rule about non-free. Now I do, so sorry, and thanks for changing it. Really, the page was just me keeping a quick note, for possible use in the argument(s). I don't mind you referring to it at all. I do wonder, though, if we're now gonna see an IfD for, particularly, the Blind Faith album. --  Chzz  ►  22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless World Net Daily writes an article about it, I'd say unlikely. But that's no reason to forget the Scout Motto. Be prepared. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review - Eastwood, Notts.

I'm honoured - does this mean promotion? ;o) Do you mind if I edit grammar, e.g. capitalisations, etc.? It looks ok at first glance, but there are some things that I think ought to be changed on the basis of usage, e.g. 'Domesday' for 'domesday'... Obviously, if I do that and there's something you don't like, you can just change it back again. I think I'll leave it alone until I hear from you, though! While I'm here, I notice that all the citations are under the section heading 'See also' - shouldn't this be 'References'? I agree about it sometimes being a good thing, not to be familiar with the field, let me know what you think. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do! I've made a start (not saved at time of writing this) - but watch carefully what I do, in case you don't like it, because I'm already noticing signs of 'mission creep'! Nortonius (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've saved a partial tidy, down to the paragraph mentioning the Erewash Canal. Nortonius (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will take a look.--  Chzz  ►  16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastwood parishes

I wonder about "include": I think you need to be clear in your own mind about the relationship between the 3 wards of Eastwood, and local parish councils, e.g. are they co-terminous? Or are there some that overlap? Perhaps it's unlikely that any would overlap, but if there are any that do I think you'd be right to name them: otherwise, I think it would be best to stick to parish councils within the 3 wards. So, no "include"?

It can be a problem identifying what exactly makes a place; but the thrust of the article seems quite rightly (for all I know) to be that it's the 3 wards that make Eastwood, since the UDC became part of Broxtowe Borough, via Broxtowe District Council. I'd stick to that as a limit, unless you want to say something like "In the 19th century the residents of Eastwood were frequently subjected to elbow tickling by an eminence grise from [[Castle Perilous, Thingummy|Castle Perilous]], in the neighbouring village of Thingummy." Either way, you need to capitalise "parish"! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What is 'Eastwood', is a very tough question, and one I fought with whilst writing the demography part. First of all, there are two "Broxtowes" - one for local gov, one for national elections. Most of Eastwood is in both, but part is not. On the local side, the 3 wards do pretty well cover what I'd call Eastwood - and what others have called Eastwood - which is why I've used the totals of them for population, etc. (I noted that other 'featured articles' are not at all so careful, and compare various older borders, wards, etc when showing population growth over long periods, e.g. altrincham - but I think that's wrong, because they're comparing apples with oranges. Their demography/population section is very misleading) Now, as regard Parish - there are many, some are tiny, and which constitute 'Eastwood', I would struggle to define. One street to the next, it can change - and whether those people in those 5 houses consider themselves in Eastwood, or Langley Mill, Beauvale, Greasley, Nuttall, New Eastwood, and others - well, you'd have to ask them! So, I think it has to stay with the slight cop-out of 'include'. (And don't even ASK about the way the borders have changed over the years!)

--  Chzz  ►  05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood - believe me I do understand! And I'm sure you're right about weirdness in other articles - the point being that (as you've already realised) in fact there is a good, clear answer somewhere. Usually a way to it can be found in "Youngs", I suppose you'll want vol.2: Youngs, F. A., Local Administrative Units: Northern England, Royal Historical Society, 1991 (unless you already know that!). Youngs isn't perfect, it has lots of hidden errors - it must have been hideous to create - but it's probably the best guide you'll find. Just check for any subsequent changes, and then you'll set an example for everyone else! If you like. ;o)

I'll try to have a little tinker with the Honour page today. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand (a bit)...but at the end of the day, there is no formal definition of "Eastwood".

My objection re. Altrincham is that they're comparing population figures over many, many years, by adding various sub-divisions of local council - all of which have changed their borders over the years. The decision as to 'what is Altrincham' and indeed what WAS Altrincham 100 years' ago, basically means the editor could make the stats go whichever way they fancied. Apples and Oranges. But I suspect the same problem exists for all encyclopaedias.

Hence I only showed the pop growth over the timespan when Eastwood UD didn't change. Unfortunately, that entity no longer exists, so the current pop is not quite a fair comparison, but in my opinion it's about as fair as you can get - ie adding the pop of those 3 local council wards. Hey ho.

Do what you like w/ Will the Younger and Honour. I've only had a stab at them. Cheers!

--  Chzz  ►  09:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's entirely up to you whether you want to get involved in the arcane subject of "what makes Eastwood"! Probably a rat's nest. What I was getting at is that there will be a "formal definition of 'Eastwood'", suitable for an encyclopedia, and it would be worth adding: the job is to decide what it is. I'm sure your understanding of what's happened in the article for Altrincham is on the money, even astute. I'll probably have a tinker with the new articles at some point today. And be aware I've done some editing to Eastwood. I'll be interested to see what the family tree looks like. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Help w/ peer review broken template thing

{{helpme}} The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

There's a peer review going on

I've just spent *ages* tidying up the peer review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1 - it was getting all confusing, so I moved stuff into sections to allow inline replies; put a notice explaining what I'd done, and all that.

...but foolishly, I moved the peer review notice doohicky, and I think I've stuffed up the listing on Wikipedia:Peer_review by moving the peer review template thing?

...but I don't want to loose all my careful reorganising 'coz it was tricky to make sure I did it right, keeping all comments, etc etc

Thanks in anticipation of any assistance.--  Chzz  ►  09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Please see this diff for changes made. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I see what you did there. Stupid me; 4 "=" not 3 for sections. And don't mess with the template that says "don't mess with this" :-)

Many thanks, sorry to have troubled you  Chzz  ►  10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no problem, it happens. And in case you weren't aware of the reasoning for the number of "="s mandated for Peer Review article pages, it is so the Table of Contents on the main PR page will only show the topic and article name headers, rather than subheaders of the kind you implemented. Just for a cleaner appearance of the TOC. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

You were right, I needed to clear the cache. Now I see the changes in public. AnnicaG (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)AnnicaG

2008 Sichuan earthquake

Keep kicking ass. Otherwise the article is going to be longer than 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay‎. Yunfeng (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Moose

I'm just scared of that moose-head winking at me, in the top-right...

--  Chzz  ►  22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey - yeah, that would be an agreeable move. I just think a cull of the international reaction would rob the article of what is rapidly becoming something of a Wikipedia standard for big events and natural disasters. It has the problem of turning into a long list of flags and platitudes, I grant, but I do not feel isolating events without an international persective sits well. Thanks for your message doktorb _words^deeds 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Were you referring to the "Reactions" paragraph? Your revision of the vandal removed it as well. Sometimes, when you revert edits with intermediate edits, they all get reverted together. But thanks.--haha169 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the problem w/ removing the vandalism, and had an edit conflict trying to fix it!

how to edit main/in the news

{{helpme}} How do I amend the main page/in the news - to update the death toll as per 2008 Sichuan earthquake to reflect new totals

Go to WP:ITN and request a change there. Only administrators can make the change...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

forgot to thank you for the reviews

Hi Chzz, I just noticed that I forgot to thank you for reviewing pied-noir and Louvre, so I thought I'd drop by and do that. Again, I appreciate the comments and am presently working on the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree

Just thought I'd let you know, I've left a comment for you at User talk:Chzz/tree. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)